Assignee's right to file winding-up petition upheld where valid debt assignment and commercial insolvency were proved.

A valid assignee of debt, including a reconstruction company acting as trustee, was held entitled to maintain a winding-up petition because it stepped into the shoes of the original creditor and the assignment fell within the broad statutory concepts of debt, secured creditor and security interest. The existence of pending recovery proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal did not bar the petition. On the insolvency question, the balance-sheet and Chartered Accountant's report showed that the company was commercially insolvent and unable to discharge its liabilities, with no material to suggest only temporary distress. The winding-up order was therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an assignee of debt, including a reconstruction company acting as trustee, had locus standi to maintain a winding-up petition; (ii) whether the company's proved financial insolvency justified an order of winding up.

Issue (i): Whether an assignee of debt, including a reconstruction company acting as trustee, had locus standi to maintain a winding-up petition.

Analysis: The assignment of the debt in favour of the reconstruction company was accepted as valid. The reasoning proceeded on the basis that the assignee could step into the shoes of the original creditor and invoke the statutory recovery framework. Reliance was placed on the inclusive definition of "debt" and the breadth of the expressions "secured creditor" and "security interest", which encompass assignment and trustee-based arrangements. The objection that pending recovery proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal barred the winding-up petition was not accepted.

Conclusion: The assignee had locus standi to move the winding-up petition.

Issue (ii): Whether the company's proved financial insolvency justified an order of winding up.

Analysis: The balance-sheet and the Chartered Accountant's report were found to show that the company was in an insolvent condition and unable to discharge its liabilities. No material was produced to show that the financial distress was temporary or that the company had sufficient assets to meet its debts. On the material before the Court, the company was treated as commercially insolvent and fit to be wound up.

Conclusion: The order of winding up was justified.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the order directing winding up of the company was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: An assignee of debt may maintain a winding-up petition where the assignment is valid and the company is shown on cogent material to be insolvent and unable to pay its debts.

---